DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application claims foreign priority to EP21198036.2 filed 09/21/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/075362 filed 03/13/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated 08/01/2024 and 04/22/2026 both comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP §609. Accordingly, they have been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akinpelu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20130344006 A1).
Akinpelu recites Example 3 (Akinpelu at [0097]) reproduced below, which recites a composition that falls within the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bentley et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170367962 A1).
Bentley et al recites a composition on Table 3 (Bentley at [0173]) reproduced below, which recites a composition that falls within the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
465
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinpelu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20130344006 A1).
Akinpelu recites Example 3 (Akinpelu at [0097]) reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Akinpelu recites a hair treatment composition comprising an acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive consisting essentially of a random copolymers comprising: i) an acrylic group having a side-chain with at least 4 carbons (eg n-butyl acrylate or 2-ethylhexyl acrylate) and; ii) a C1-C6 side-chain acrylic such as methyl acrylate; the weight ratio of short side chain acrylic group ii) to the acrylic group i) is from 1.9:98.1 to 4.0:96.0. (Akinpelu at claim 1). Akinpelu recites in which the weight ratio of C1-C6 side chain acrylic group ii) to the acrylic group i) is from 1.9 to 98:1 to 2.5:97.5 (Akinpelu at claim 2). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a cationic conditioning surfactant (Akinpelu at claim 3). Akinpelu recites which further comprises an emollient (Akinpelu at claim 4). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a volatile silicone (Akinpelu at claim 5). Akinpelu recites which is a leave on composition (Akinpelu at claim 6). Akinpelu recites which further comprises hydrocarbon propellant (Akinpelu at claim 7). Akinpelu recites a method for styling hair which comprises contacting the hair with a composition in accordance with claim 1 (Akinpelu at claim 8). Akinpelu recites the use of an acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive consisting essentially of a random copolymers comprising: i) an acrylic group having a side-chain with at least 4 carbons (eg n-butyl acrylate or 2-ethylhexyl acrylate), and; ii) a C1-C6 side-chain acrylic such as methyl acrylate, the weight ratio of C1-C6 side chain acrylic group ii) to the acrylic group i) is from 1.9:98.1 to re-style hair (Akinpelu at claim 9). Akinpelu teaches the use of “Pressure sensitive adhesive” (PSA) materials are permanently tacky at room temperature and able to develop measurable adhesion to a surface simply upon contact or by the application of a light pressure. Generally they do not require heat. No chemical reaction takes place between the adhesive and the adherent, no curing of the adhesive is necessary and no solvent is required to be lost during the adhesion process (Akinpelu at [0013]). Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]). Akinpelu teaches the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive is present at levels from 0.01% to 10% by weight of the total composition. More preferred amounts of acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive in the compositions of the invention are from 0.1% to 5% by weight of the composition, even more preferably from 0.5% to 3.5% by weight (Akinpelu at [0023]). Akinpelu teaches that surfactants which are suitable for use in the compositions of the invention may be nonionic, cationic, anionic, zwitterionic or a mixture of such surfactants depending on the product form (Akinpelu at [0028]). Akinpelu teaches compositions of the invention preferably comprise a non-ionic surfactant, in an amount of up to 5%, preferably from 0.01% to 1%, most preferably from 0.02% to 0.8% by weight based on total weight (Akinpelu at [0028]). Akinpelu teaches that water will typically be present in amounts ranging from 30% to 98%, preferably from 50% to 95% by weight (Akinpelu at [0031]). Akinpelu teaches that emollients such as hydrocarbons, esters, silicone fluids, may be included in the compositions of the invention. Emollients may typically be present in compositions of the invention in amounts of from 0.001% to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1% to 3% by weight. Emollients may be single compounds or mixtures of two or more compounds from the same class or different general classes (Akinpelu at [0033]).
Akinpelu is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. Akinpelu differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Akinpelu to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Akinpelu teaches compositions of the invention preferably comprise a non-ionic surfactant, in an amount of up to 5%, preferably from 0.01% to 1%, most preferably from 0.02% to 0.8% by weight based on total weight (Akinpelu at [0028]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1% to 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]). Akinpelu teaches the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive is present at levels from 0.01% to 10% by weight of the total composition (Akinpelu at [0023]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.1% to 5%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a volatile silicone (Akinpelu at claim 5). Akinpelu teaches that emollients such as hydrocarbons, esters, silicone fluids, may be included in the compositions of the invention. Emollients may typically be present in compositions of the invention in amounts of from 0.001% to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1% to 3% by weight (Akinpelu at [0033]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.5% to 3%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 2, Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]). Akinpelu teaches the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive is present at levels from 0.01% to 10% by weight of the total composition (Akinpelu at [0023]). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a volatile silicone (Akinpelu at claim 5). Akinpelu teaches that emollients such as hydrocarbons, esters, silicone fluids, may be included in the compositions of the invention. Emollients may typically be present in compositions of the invention in amounts of from 0.001% to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1% to 3% by weight (Akinpelu at [0033]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 4:1 to 1:4. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 3, Akinpelu teaches compositions of the invention preferably comprise a non-ionic surfactant, in an amount of up to 5%, preferably from 0.01% to 1%, most preferably from 0.02% to 0.8% by weight based on total weight (Akinpelu at [0028]).
Regarding instant claim 4, Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]).
Regarding instant claim 5, Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]).
Regarding instant claim 6, Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]). Akinpelu teaches the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive is present at levels from 0.01% to 10% by weight of the total composition (Akinpelu at [0023]). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a volatile silicone (Akinpelu at claim 5). Akinpelu teaches that emollients such as hydrocarbons, esters, silicone fluids, may be included in the compositions of the invention. Emollients may typically be present in compositions of the invention in amounts of from 0.001% to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1% to 3% by weight (Akinpelu at [0033]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 3:1 to 1:3. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 7, Akinpelu teaches water-born acrylic sensitive pressure adhesives include Roderm MD-5800 ex Rohm and Haas (Akinpelu at [0022]). Akinpelu teaches the acrylic pressure sensitive adhesive is present at levels from 0.01% to 10% by weight of the total composition (Akinpelu at [0023]). Akinpelu recites which further comprises a volatile silicone (Akinpelu at claim 5). Akinpelu teaches that emollients such as hydrocarbons, esters, silicone fluids, may be included in the compositions of the invention. Emollients may typically be present in compositions of the invention in amounts of from 0.001% to 10% by weight, preferably 0.1% to 3% by weight (Akinpelu at [0033]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 2:1 to 1:2. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 8, Akinpelu teaches that water will typically be present in amounts ranging from 30% to 98%, preferably from 50% to 95% by weight (Akinpelu at [0031]) , which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 50% to 98%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 9, Akinpelu recites a method for styling hair which comprises contacting the hair with a composition (Akinpelu at claim 8).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20170367962 A1).
Bentley et al recites a composition on Table 3 (Bentley at [0173]) reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
465
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bently recites a rinse off hair treatment composition comprising; a. a pressure sensitive adhesive emulsion comprising one or more pressure sensitive polymer, wherein the pressure sensitive polymer is not silicone pressure sensitive polymer, b. at least one material selected from the group consisting of i) a hair conditioning agent; and ii) a hair cleansing agent, and c. a deposition aid (Bentley at claim 1). Bently recites wherein the particle size of the Pressure Sensitive Adhesive in emulsion is 1 nm to 1 um (Bentley at claim 2). Bently recites wherein the composition comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % of active Pressure Sensitive Adhesive (Bentley at claim 3). Bently recites wherein the Pressure Sensitive Adhesive is an acrylic Pressure Sensitive Adhesive (Bentley at claim 4). Bently recites wherein the Pressure Sensitive Adhesive comprises:
a. an acrylic group having a side-chain with at least 4 carbons; and
b. a side chain acrylic (Bentley at claim 5). Bently recites wherein the acrylic group is butylacrylate and the C1-C6 side-chain acrylic acid is methacrylic acid (Bentley at claim 6). Bently recites wherein the rinse off composition is a shampoo or conditioner composition (Bentley at claim 7). Bently recites which is a shampoo, wherein the deposition aid is selected from cationic cellulose and cationic guar gum derivatives (Bentley at claim 8). Bently recites which is a shampoo, wherein the pH is 7 or greater (Bentley at claim 9). Bently recites wherein the composition is a shampoo composition comprising a miscellar structured liquid having a viscosity in the range of from 1000 cPs to 15000 cPs as measured on a Brookfield DV2T Helipath viscometer, at 30° C. using a RV5 spindle at 20 RPM (Bentley at claim 10). Bently recites wherein the composition is a conditioning composition comprising a miscellar structured liquid having a viscosity in the range of from 1000 cPs to 450 000 cPs at measured on a Brookfield DV2T Helipath viscometer, at room temperature, using a TA/TB bar spindle with a helical path at 0.5 RPM (Bentley at claim 11). Bently recites a method of treating hair comprising the following steps; apply to hair a rinse off hair treatment composition, Leave on hair for less than one minute to 10 minutes Rinse composition off of hair (Bentley at claim 12). Bentley teaches that preferred acrylic pressure sensitive materials include Acudyne MD-5800 by Dow and Acudyne MD-5600 by Dow. (Bentley at [0034]). Bentley teaches that hair treatment composition preferably comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % active pressure sensitive adhesive (i.e. not including the weight of the emulsion liquid), more preferably 0.1 to 7 w.t. %, most preferably 0.25 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0018]). Bentley teaches that the hair cleansing agent may be an anionic cleansing surfactant which is cosmetically acceptable and suitable for topical application to the hair (Bentley at [0041]). Bentley teaches that the total amount of anionic cleansing surfactant in compositions of the invention is generally from 1 to 30 w.t. %, preferably from 6 to 20 w.t. %, more preferably from 8 to 16 w.t. % (Bentley at [0045]). Bentley teaches that the composition can include other cleansing agents, to help impart aesthetic, physical or cleansing properties to the composition. A preferred example is an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant, which can be included in an amount ranging from 0 to 8 w.t. %, preferably from 1 to 4 w.t. %. (Bentley at [0047]). Bentley teaches that another preferred example is a nonionic surfactant, which can be included in an amount ranging from 0 to 8 w.t. %, preferably from 2 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0049]). Bentley teaches that the composition may contain any other ingredient normally used in hair treatment formulations, including further silicone or non-silicone hair conditioning oils. These other ingredients may include viscosity modifiers, preservatives, colouring agents, polyols such as glycerine and polypropylene glycol, chelating agents such as EDTA, antioxidants, fragrances, antimicrobials and sunscreens. Each of these ingredients will be present in an amount effective to accomplish its purpose. Generally these optional ingredients are included individually at a level of up to 5% by weight of the total composition (Bentley at [0156]).
Bentley is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. Bentley differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Bentley to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Bentley teaches that the total amount of anionic cleansing surfactant in compositions of the invention is generally from 1 to 30 w.t. %, preferably from 6 to 20 w.t. %, more preferably from 8 to 16 w.t. % (Bentley at [0045]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1% to 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Bentley teaches that preferred acrylic pressure sensitive materials include Acudyne MD-5800 by Dow and Acudyne MD-5600 by Dow. (Bentley at [0034]). Bentley teaches that hair treatment composition preferably comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % active pressure sensitive adhesive (i.e. not including the weight of the emulsion liquid), more preferably 0.1 to 7 w.t. %, most preferably 0.25 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0018]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.1% to 5%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Bentley teaches that the composition may contain any other ingredient normally used in hair treatment formulations, including further silicone or non-silicone hair conditioning oils. Generally these optional ingredients are included individually at a level of up to 5% by weight of the total composition (Bentley at [0156]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.5% to 3%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 2, Bentley teaches that hair treatment composition preferably comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % active pressure sensitive adhesive (i.e. not including the weight of the emulsion liquid), more preferably 0.1 to 7 w.t. %, most preferably 0.25 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0018]). Bentley teaches that the composition may contain any other ingredient normally used in hair treatment formulations, including further silicone or non-silicone hair conditioning oils. Generally these optional ingredients are included individually at a level of up to 5% by weight of the total composition (Bentley at [0156]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 4:1 to 1:4. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 3, Bentley teaches that the total amount of anionic cleansing surfactant in compositions of the invention is generally from 1 to 30 w.t. %, preferably from 6 to 20 w.t. %, more preferably from 8 to 16 w.t. % (Bentley at [0045]).
Regarding instant claim 4, Bentley teaches that preferred acrylic pressure sensitive materials include Acudyne MD-5800 by Dow and Acudyne MD-5600 by Dow. (Bentley at [0034]).
Regarding instant claim 5, Bentley teaches that preferred acrylic pressure sensitive materials include Acudyne MD-5800 by Dow and Acudyne MD-5600 by Dow. (Bentley at [0034]).
Regarding instant claim 6, Bentley teaches that hair treatment composition preferably comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % active pressure sensitive adhesive (i.e. not including the weight of the emulsion liquid), more preferably 0.1 to 7 w.t. %, most preferably 0.25 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0018]). Bentley teaches that the composition may contain any other ingredient normally used in hair treatment formulations, including further silicone or non-silicone hair conditioning oils. Generally these optional ingredients are included individually at a level of up to 5% by weight of the total composition (Bentley at [0156]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 3:1 to 1:3. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 7, Bentley teaches that hair treatment composition preferably comprises 0.01 to 10 w.t. % active pressure sensitive adhesive (i.e. not including the weight of the emulsion liquid), more preferably 0.1 to 7 w.t. %, most preferably 0.25 to 5 w.t. % (Bentley at [0018]). Bentley teaches that the composition may contain any other ingredient normally used in hair treatment formulations, including further silicone or non-silicone hair conditioning oils. Generally these optional ingredients are included individually at a level of up to 5% by weight of the total composition (Bentley at [0156]). Pressure sensitive adhesives and silicones in these ranges are able to be in a ratio of 2:1 to 1:2. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding instant claim 8, Bentley recites Table 3 which provides a composition which falls within the instantly claimed range for water of 50% to 98%.
Regarding instant claim 9, Bently recites a method of treating hair comprising the following steps; apply to hair a rinse off hair treatment composition, Leave on hair for less than one minute to 10 minutes Rinse composition off of hair (Bentley at claim 12).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No.11,103,438 in view of Akinpelu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20130344006 A1). The instant application recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: a 1% to 50% by weight of one or more cleansing surfactants; b 0.1% to 5% by weight of a pressure sensitive adhesive, said pressure sensitive adhesive being a random copolymer comprising i an acrylic group having a side chain with at least 4 carbons; and ii a Ci-C6 side chain acrylic; and c 0.5% to 3% by weight of a silicone.
The reference patent recites a rinse off hair treatment composition consisting of:
a. a pressure sensitive adhesive emulsion comprising an active pressure sensitive polymer, wherein the active pressure sensitive polymer is not a silicone pressure sensitive polymer, and wherein the active pressure sensitive polymer is an acrylic pressure sensitive copolymer having: i) an acrylic group having a side-chain with at least 4 carbons; and ii) an acrylic group having a C1-C6 side chain, b. at least one material selected from the group consisting of i) a hair conditioning agent; and ii) a hair cleansing agent, and c. a deposition polymer selected from the group consisting of cationic cellulose and cationic guar gum derivatives, d. water, and e. optionally, other ingredients; wherein the active pressure sensitive polymer is present at 0.01 to 10 wt. % in the rinse off hair treatment composition (‘438 at claim 1). The reference patent recites wherein the particle size of the pressure sensitive adhesive emulsion is 1 nm to 1 um (‘438 at claim 2). The reference patent recites wherein the acrylic group having a side chain with at least 4 carbons is butyl acrylate and the acrylic group having a C1-C6 side chain is methacrylic acid (‘438 at claim 3). The reference patent recites wherein the rinse off composition is a shampoo or conditioner composition (‘438 at claim 4). The reference patent recites which is a shampoo, wherein the pH is 7 or greater (‘438 at claim 5). The reference patent recites wherein the composition is a shampoo composition comprising a micellar structured liquid having a viscosity in the range of from 1,000 cPs to 15,000 cPs as measured on a Brookfield DV2T Helipath viscometer, at 30° C. using a RV5 spindle at 20 RPM (‘438 at claim 6). The reference patent recites wherein the composition is a conditioning composition comprising a micellar structured liquid having a viscosity in the range of from 1,000 cPs to 450,000 cPs at measured on a Brookfield DV2T Helipath viscometer, at room temperature, using a TA/TB bar spindle with a helical path at 0.5 RPM (‘438 at claim 7). The reference patent recites a method of treating hair comprising: applying to the hair a rinse off hair treatment composition as defined in claim 1, leaving the composition on the hair for less than one minute to 10 minutes, and rinsing the composition off of the hair (‘438 at claim 8). The reference patent recites wherein the acrylic group having a side chain with at least 4 carbons is selected from the group consisting of n-butyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, n-hexyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate and dodecyl acrylate, and the acrylic group having a C1-C6 side chain is selected from the group consisting of acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, methacrylic acid, ethyl acrylate, and butyl acrylate (‘438 at claim 9). The reference patent recites herein the other ingredients are selected from the group consisting of cationic surfactants, suspending agents, thickeners, viscosity modifiers, silicone hair conditioning oils, non-silicone hair conditioning oils, preservatives, stabilizers to inhibit darkening, coloring agents, polyols, chelating agents, antioxidants, fragrances, perfuming agents, antimicrobials, sunscreens, lactic acid, stearamidopropyl dimethylamine, cetearyl alcohol, an alkali metal salt, sodium hydroxide, carbomer, sodium laureth sulphate, and cocamidopropyl betaine (‘438 at claim 10).
The reference patent differs from the instant application insofar as it does not specifically teach the amounts for the silicone or the surfactants. The teachings of Akinpelu cure this deficit.
The teachings of Akinpelu are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the silicone and surfactants of the hair care composition of reference patent ‘438 in the ranges that are taught by Akinpelu to be useful in haircare compositions. See MPEP 2144.07. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both ‘438 and Akinpelu teach haircare compositions comprising pressure sensitive adhesives, silicone, water, and surfactants.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights